netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 08/19] pds_core: initial VF configuration

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 30 Nov 2022 16:12:23 -0800
From:   Shannon Nelson <shnelson@....com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Shannon Nelson <snelson@...sando.io>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        davem@...emloft.net, mst@...hat.com, jasowang@...hat.com,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, drivers@...sando.io
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 08/19] pds_core: initial VF configuration

On 11/29/22 6:02 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 09:57:25 -0800 Shannon Nelson wrote:
>>>> Yes, a PF representor simply so we can get access to the .ndo_set_vf_xxx
>>>> interfaces.  There is no network traffic running through the PF.
>>>
>>> In that case not only have you come up with your own name for
>>> a SmartNIC, you also managed to misuse one of our existing terms
>>> in your own way! It can't pass any traffic it's just a dummy to hook
>>> the legacy vf ndos to. It's the opposite of what a repr is.
>>
>> Sorry, this seemed to me an reasonable use of the term.  Is there an
>> alternative wording we should use for this case?
>>
>> Are there other existing methods we can use for getting the VF
>> configurations from the user, or does this make sense to keep in our
>> current simple model?
> 
> Enough back and forth. I'm not going to come up with a special model
> just for you when a model already exists, and you present no technical
> argument against it.
> 
> I am against merging your code, if you want to override find other
> vendors and senior upstream reviewers who will side with you.

We're not asking for a special model, just to use the PF interface to 
configure VFs as has been the practice in the past.

Anyway, this feature can wait and we can work out alternatives later. 
For now, we'll drop the netdev portion from the driver and rework the 
other bits as discussed in other messages.  I'll likely have a v2 for 
comments sometime next week.

Thanks for your help,
sln